Many pilots, including myself, owe their safe career from lessons like these. This is an unfortunate reality. However, not knowing aviation accidents history can be the difference between life and death in a decision making process. Flying is 90% decision making and 10% of handling. Old Captains know this…and that is why they are old. This channel is a must see ! Thank you !
After studying all these videos, and perhaps knowing more about the mechanical nature of the moving parts, and all the hydrolics, and worse, how computer glitches can affect the plane, I feel like with a little training I could fly one of these things. But perhaps I'm too old and flying's heyday has long past. It seems like they're trying to extinguish travel along with many people. But if these pilots keep dying, who knows, one day I may get to land one of these things. Any tips?
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 Yep, "How-to-Fly-an-Aircraft 101": Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If something is wrong before completion of "Aviate", reject take-off. Been there, done that. Still alive.
They are old because flying is still very very safe. There´s also no difference between highly experienced and "novice" pilots when it comes to crashes, pilot error or saving a plane. Stress situations cannot be trained and a 35 yo FO might be as cool as a 55yo captain.
I often have stones jammed into my lift equipment, but these machines are thick steel and will either crush the stones or simply skid them out of the way. Now when you have soft aluminum skins and fragile dense aluminum spars, that is a much more dangerous situation. Well explained. Thanks for another great episode Mini.
@@analogdistortion i believe he is merely reaffirming the relative fragility of aluminum as well as loosely implying that many types of debris are hazardous to aircraft fuselages. may i axk if perchance if you are a hip hop can?
I'm a Navy veteran. Jet engine mechanic on the F-14 Tomcat 78-82. We called it FOD (Foreign Object Damage). We would have fod walkdowns picking up anything that could cause damage especially to the engines. Doing it on the carrier wasn't bad because it's only a quarter mile long but on the land base we had 11,oo
My brother worked at Northrop Grumman in St. Augustine, FL. They tore down wings & rebuilt them. While he worked in the offices, his job was to inspect the wings at different points of the repair. He even did FOD searches on our driveway! I do them around our boarding stable cause a horse will step on or taste anything. Most of the workers were Ret Navy, my brother, Tom, was proud to work on Tomcats!
Yes - this is plausible and pilots should abort the take off if possible if ANYTHING odd happens during the roll. ANYTHING. If that jams up a busy airport, too bad.
@@goneracing1646 so one plane has to do a go-around/missed-approach, when lives are at stake, ya don't screw around. This incident also highlights the importance of CRM. All it would've taken is one member of the flight crew to say "something's wrong, let's abort and call the shop", and maybe they would've stopped and gotten off the runway alive and with a mostly intact plane.
Just remember though this was in the era where air travel was just beginning to be less than the cost of sea travel. A lot of the blood lessons we enjoy today ie CRM, routine missed approaches etc weren't really acceptable - only perfection. Back then if the captain said go you went if you were a co-pilot. The co-pilot might not through fear even consider challenging the captain's authority. Not so today. This horrible crash in 1972 may have been exacerbated by a pre flight argument. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548
Losing an engine is far, far worse than a tail strike. In a similar DC-8, we hit tail on takeoff out of PAP-JFK. We completed the flight. It was checked in JFK and was able to continue its work. Tail strikes can range from a scratch to damage to the fuselage, but still not worse than loosing an engine especially on Take Off.
@@lucaschneider1613 What a pity these pilots didn't "feel like it". They dragged this plane into the air after *literally* dragging its ass down the runway for 1200 feet. No, they had no way of knowing they had a rock stuck in their ass crack - but they had every reason to know they couldn't get that plane off the ground and there had to be some damn good reason for that. If they'd aborted that takeoff, the rock might have fallen out, leaving them none the wiser - until some slightly-less-idiotic engineer thought, hey, what would make this plane pitch up *all the way down the runway*. It wasn't like today, when the pilots set out to fly and every damn thing they do gets run through some subcontractor's software FM box, to emerge on the other end in God only knows what configuration, and we finally bother to figure out what after we've sacrificed two plane loads of people. But hey, those pilots were furriners and they just couldn't fly our fancy baby, amiright?
@@pseudotasuki - If you're at V1 speed.....you're not supposed to reject a take off as you won't have enough runway to stop after rejecting. Yes, they should've rejected ASAP, but they didn't. Once they got to V1 it was too late.
Another item for the list of terrifyingly insignificant things that can bring down a plane. A few pebbles, an insect, a piece of tape, a wrong sized screw...
The thing that sets this channel apart from other air disaster channels is the intrigue titles, yet they aren’t clickbait instead one is greater with an interesting incident that is somewhat obscure, I can’t wait to see you reach 100k and get verified!
Deadly mistaken judgment: so sad it was induced, practically commanded, by company policies that there shall be no RTO unless an engine has completely failed.
@@Wehra96 yea but surely even past V1 slamming the air brakes,, throwing the engine in reverse and hoping for the best is still better and gives you a much higher chance of surviving AND more importantly your passengers (or some of them) being on the ground even if you collide with something than getting into the air and falling from a few thousand feet.
I was under the impression that, to this day it is still considered safer to complete a take off and then trouble shoot once airborne rather than reject a take off.
V1 is literally the maximum speed at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated in the event of an emergency. You don't know during takeoff how bad a problem is going to be until youre airborne. You do know as a fact that a rejected takeoff is likely going to result in a hull loss, injury and possible loss of human lifes.
@@andyrob3259 If they rejected an place before lift off or even a few feet after they turned off with 8-9000 feet of runway remaining. Also pulling the throttles to idle would have eliminated the tremendous pitch up force caused by the engines running at T/O power. There was no use of Flex/Standard/Reduced power in those days.
I actually remember reading an interview with an airline engineer who was just leaving JFK after his work shift when he heard right above him the scream of stalling engines, and looked up to see the big DC-8 fall out of the sky. He even tended to the crash site along with fire services and rescuers. He said he was haunted by the experience and the images for years afterwards.
Once (2006) I saw a stone removing dude in action on an apron. Between the parked airplanes he was just blowing the small stones away with a high pressure hose. The stones were flying all over the place denting the surfaces of the planes as well. Incredible negligence. But this is the way it happens... in Florida.
Now I wonder what would happen if a stone made its way into an engine... After all, at major airports, there are multiple aircraft with engines running. If the stones made their way into the engine and destroyed one of the fan blades, you could risk an uncontained engine failure. If the stones somehow made their way through the bypass of the turbofan without knocking out the blades, you'd get stones flying out from the back of the engine at whatever speed the air was coming out of the engine.
I worked for United in 1970 on DC8s at our overhaul facility in SFO. I remember seeing stones in the flapwells of the wings and thinking “ how did they get there”. Also the DC 8 has manual elevators. no hydraulics not a well known fact
Wouldn't surprise me, you have any idea how hard it is to create an obstacle free space? That's why I strongly prefer planes that are built to withstand the unexpected. For example, a small gasket blocking the opening would prevent anything like this from happening, but nope not there. It's like hurricanes, we know the most common damage is to windows, but we know that a small barrier a distance away from the structure can weaken the forces enough that it can't damage the structure. Yet, they pretty much never utilize these basic concepts to build hardened structures that don't kill their occupants whenever there is bad weather. The solutions are usually plain as day, the issues usually because somebody refuses to do what they know they should do. Just like with this pandemic... We knew what to do, we've done it successfully every other time... Yet bizarrely, they didn't do what they knew they should & now we are in an out of control pandemic. You can't necessarily predict the unpredictable but come on, any engineer worth their salt, knows that small spaces between moving parts can become a trap for any random thing that gets in there. It's not just a rock, if there's any sort of impact, explosion, part failure, etc; debris can be generated that can get stuck in there. Even my crappy washer & dryer has gaskets to prevent random crap from getting into the wrong places! It's not that novel an idea.
I was on the DC-8 for a few years. I rember that our DC-8 -63's had a small gauge installed on the panel that showed elevator position. We would do an 80 knot elevator check and verified the movement with the gauge. I'm not positive but I think that gauge became a requirement after this accident.
Maybe I've been watching too many of these, but... Halfway down the runway, the nose won't stay down, the plane won't take off... ABORT ABORT ABORT !!! I was actually expecting them to abort and run off the end of the runway. Nah! Let's just take off and figure it out in the air. (edit) Having watched to the end now, great explanation. It's very interesting to see how procedures are improved as things are learned.
''Halfway down the runway, the nose won't stay down, the plane won't take off...'' .. maybe they werent sure about cargo comp. weight divisions , in the back of their heads they must said ''ohh another load masters shitery''..when they wasnot sure at one thing , they relied on another..
Generally, at most major airports, there is a clear zone at the ends of the runways. At JFK Airport, there are clear areas on the ends of the runways, so worst-case scenario, if they overrun the runway, they'd probably just destroy some lights.
@@ersendal2466 It was just a repositioning flight though. No passengers or cargo. I think it was just that the training for rejecting a takeoff only covered loss of power or a catastrophic failure. They had an unknown situation and only seconds to make the decision.
A serious tail strike has the potential to cause pressurization issues, right? One would think that would have been enough to reject the takeoff. Had no idea that the manuals and training focused on engines as the only real reason to reject as recently as the late 1960s. Mind blowing. Great job on this one.
@@TLSFC5050 thank you for the insight. Am aware that the manufacturers add reinforcement in the area, but didn't know how effective it is in protecting the airframe from depressurization.
Depressurization - assuming the damage is severe enough - would only become a problem as soon as the plane reaches a certain altitude. The more immediate problem would be the rejected takeoff itself. Even if there is enough runway left the pilots still may come to the conclusion that it is less dangerous to proceed with the takeoff but return to the airport afterwards.
Well, I (a retired ATP) would have firstly suspected a mis-set pitch trim..... even with a lightly loaded DC-8, an uncommanded rotation as low as at 80 kts. is highly unusual if not impossible. After verifying on the pitch trim gauge that the setting is within limits and asking the PF if he/she had inadvertently pulled on the yoke, I would have aborted. But that's while sitting in a comfortable chair... I do not mean in any way to criticize the poor crew. But there for the grace of god go I...
Would you not have recognsed that the control column had moved back OK, but then wouldn't go nose-down, suggesting a control failure - and have to either reject take-off, or rapidly make a lot of nose-down trim?
You're right. It's always easy to say "I would just" when you're in a comfy chair with no real pressure and several minutes to think about it, having been presented with all the facts. Rather harder when a problem with a habituated movement unexpectedly throws you out of virtuoso mode and into learning mode at a time when you're already busy and stressed. The sudden jump of fear and confusion and the knowledge that this might be the end. This always slightly annoys me when people calmy spend minutes, hours or weeks analyzing a crew's few seconds of confusion and fear and reach the conclusion they would have done it better.
That's what I thought...rotation at that speed is cause for pause!! You can ALWAYS fix things on the ground, not in the air. ALWAYS ERROR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION...that is what saves lives.
Your have thought that, with flight control problems beginning at 80kts, the pilots would have aborted the take off. Unfortunately the concept of RTO’s and the horror of believing they would block a runway seemed to far outweigh the desire to stay alive.
I suspect that pilot discretion was less of a thing in 1970 also. Another video (74 Gear) mentioned that many airlines have instituted "no fault" go-arounds. The idea being that having to explain (to the boss) why you chose to go around made pilots hesitant, which resulted in incidents.
@@briant7265 my first airline made the captain come in and explain every go around. They also basically made it known you were finished if you did the emergency gear extension qrh procedure... It blew explosive bolts that cost 40k EACH. That airline subsequently crashed a perfectly good q400 into a house...
@@BobbyGeneric145 Exactly! I mean, of you blew one of those bolts every week for 50 years it would add up to an entire $100 million airplane. (Illustrative calculation with ironic tone.)
Hindsight.. absolutely should have been a rejected take off. Pitch-up on takeoff before V1-Vr is usually a trim out of T-Off range issue (pilot error) or runaway trim (depending upon system type). In the simulators, we would train for hours just on rejected takeoffs, however, I support the notion that most flight training RE rejected takeoffs is definitely focused on engine data rather than flight control anomalies. A psychologist might say "out of sight - out of mind" to explain the rationale for continuing the flight. A known tail strike prior to V1 definitely should have been a rejected take off decision. I wonder what the transcript said from the CVR? At those speeds, you have seconds to react before a problem gets out of control and cannot be resurrected. Surprised here that self-preservation did not kick in a little sharper while still in ground-effect. After V1, most training (through to the end of my career in 2000) was directed toward continuing the flight rather than running off the end of a runway into terrain, buildings or water.
@@richardmorgan3974 Not hindsight. I was not familiar with this incident and as he was describing it I honestly expected them to reject and run off the end of the runway.
Of course it is plausible. However, I don’t think anyone would ever think about in 1 million years. I agree with everyone else, I love your videos. My favorite videos are the ones where they don’t crash-but both are great
They should now. Especially EVERY airport resurfacing. They need to be more vigilant about debris, warning pilots to REJECT takeoffs if they have trouble with controls while debris is present during resurfacing is proceeding at that airport.
It serves no purpose in its function as a purpose-built flight simulator. That'd be a function for video games and the like, since nothing they would try to create would follow any semblance of realism, and therefore wouldn't fit in with what the simulator is meant to do.
@Leokimvideo Its not a crash simulation ... what would be a totally waste of resources to program in crash dynamics. The goal of the flight sim is to not crash.
Yes. Known such things to happen. Aeroperu's state of the art plane brought down by a few inches of tape in 1996, the Concord by a strip of twisted metal on the runway... It's heart wrenching. Thanks for this informative video.
Maybe the emphasis in training and the urge to fly out of the way played a part. Otherwise, if it ain’t working, a rejected take off should be instinct.
Of course possible, apropos the Concorde crash. From an armchair pilot perspective, it is "too easy" to say "no control, STOP while we can", but the real world is less straightforward.
Very true. But there's supposed to be three well trained brains on that flight deck. You'd think someone would have, and should spoken up. But, that's why we have CRM training.
It is standard to check full and free movement of control surfaces. But that is no good in the freakish case it gets jammed in later on during taxi or take off roll.
This accident perfectly illustrates the fact that aircraft certification is based on safety requirements involving mainly the aircraft’s internal reliability, that is the robustness to internal failures. Unfortunately, commercial aircraft evolve in a physical environment that includes many possible hazards and external factors of possible damage. The Concorde crash is a similar case, where a tiny metal strip fallen from a previous plane and lying on the runway was enough to cause a tire explosion with catastrophic consequences. No design can be perfectly robust to endless hazards and contingencies, however we should learn from the past that some of those should be accounted for, at least in future aircraft designs. Stones from runway/taxiway works are (or should be) one of them, just like bird strikes.
This was a real posibility on the DC8. First, the elevators were not hydraulicly boosted, but manually controlled by cables from the control yoke. Second, with no airflow over the horizontal stab, the elevators would be full airplane nose up, so the gap between the elevators leading edge and the horizontal stab was several inches, big enough for anything to get in and jam something. A flight control check during taxi, was not sufficient as there was not enough speed to overcome the position of the elevators. Only during the initial takeoff roll, the elevators could be moved freely. Too bad, they did not abort the takeoff when the tail strike occurred. Sometimes relying on procedures, overrides common sense. Great video.
Mike Petey emphasizes that this is how he crashed Draco. He didn't like the look of the take off but continued out of consideration for ATC and other waiting aircraft. That consideration for others nearly killed him.
This accident resulted in a couple of changes for DC-8 flight crews. One was a call out of 80 knots by the non flying pilot which would be an indication that sufficient airflow over the elevators existed to perform an elevator check, moving the control column forward to accomplish a nose strut compression will indicate free elevator operation. After the nose bob the flying pilot will state Elevator Checked. If the elevator does not check satisfactory the rejected takeoff procedure is considered. This check is also a good indicator that the center of gravity and takeoff stabolizer setting was within limits.
Out standing!. You have a super program. Now, if only you could figure out why I lost both engines on a night cargo flight and crashed. (Piper Navajo).1999.
This led to the DC-8 takeoff procedure--at 80 knots, right seater momentarily pushes forward on the yoke to be sure the elevators react (nose down). Did it many times.
I don’t even remember this accident. Thank you for covering this unfortunate disaster. Have you ever considered covering the TWA accident that crashed on Weather Mountain in Virginia on final to Dulles? It was diverted to Dulles but was supposed to land at National Airport.
THIS is the comment of the youtube channel Mini Air Crash Investigation. On the 11th of September 2021 I wrote, that this is one of the best channels on youtube, cause everything went according to pleasure and entertainment until 9:52 when the video was over.
Suggestion : You should talk about the recommendations made by the investigation board and the changes made in other flying aircraft as a consequence of this.
For an example of a channel that does this very well (and which covers disasters very professionally and respectfully, Fascinating Horrors is worth watching)
One of my brothers works in Rescue at the airport here - he's always emphasised how they've been trained to recognise just how important proper - PROPER - FOD inspections are - they're taken VERY seriously. Lessons learnt, methinks.
Takeoffs are optional; landings aren't. I want to comment on an interesting phenomenon i have noticed. Mayday documentaries are being made available for public viewing on RUclips. I think this is because the people with the rights to them have discovered that your channel and others are basically producing content that is higher quality than theirs. Where you and the other RUclips air accident and incident documenters provide real analyses backed up with evidence and sensible arguments in a concise format, the Mayday productions concentrate too heavily on sensationalizing and attention grabbing. Frankly, Mayday and other documentaries of old embarrass me when compared to the quality of the documentaries that you and other RUclips content creators produce. Thank you very much for your work. I have blocked the Mayday channel from being recommended to me in the future.
As far as im aware blocking them only prevents them from commenting, it probably wont help in this case, when i blocked someone their videos were still be recommended becasue i was watching similar videos by other creators. Not to say these are similar but to the algorithm it might be
I don't think the rights of the show has anything to do with RUclips content. Everyone is free to upload here. I love Mayday TV series ( or Air Crash Investigation). And I watch yt channels like this too.
@@elkapitan75 Actually, show rights and copyright do have things to do with RUclips content. Everyone is free to upload here, but if it's a show with a paid license then those that own them have the rights to take your videos down or direct revenue from your video to them.
After watching several of your mini aircraft crash videos I have come to the conclusion that I like them much better than the MAYDAY investigations that are dramatized on television. One great aspect of your format is a teachable moment comes quickly and very clearly explained. This episode makes me want to more carefully examine and articulate the movable surfaces in the preflight walkaround check. Also, being mindful to understand what ever anomaly is found, scratches, gouges and dents can kill, if not understood prior to takeoff. As a teenage driver, with little experience, I put books on the floor thinking my legs would keep them in place. When I clutched and braked to pick up some buddies, the slick textbooks fell foward under the pedals. And a 1961 544 Volvo (w/seatbelts) got its right front axle moved straight back 1 inch by a high stone curb. No one was hurt, but driving to school it was obvious my wallet was going to get very skinny and my back was going to buy $700 (1967$$) parts and labor. I never did THAT again ! ! The legacy of your videos will hopefully be helping someone who is flying, from making an error with their textbooks on the deck. So to speak.
It would seem to me that the most likely reason a stone was stuck in the elevator, and more up in the tail section, is from dragging the goddamn tail 1200 ft down the runway. There was another primary cause for the nose to be prematurely lifting up. The plane's center of gravity could have been off due to how it was loaded. The pilot has to set the trim according to the load balance to take off properly. The stones in the tail were a direct effect of the tail dragging down the runway.
The scariest things are the ones nobody thinks of. This time it was a rock jammed in the elevator, next time it might be a raccoon in the landing gear or some other stupid thing.
It just underlines how invaluable is the work that organisations like ours do all over the world. Even though many incidents that are investigated can show similarity of cause, it is well understood that there is always that one cause that is a first and you never know when that will happen. Excellent presentation, sir.
Very interesting video. Not one I have heard about. And that is why I love your channel. You have shown us incidents that are more unknown. Thank you!!
Great video! We've learned a lot since then. Light airplanes get into trouble trying to continue and heavies get into trouble trying to stop. However, an uncommanded pitch up at 80kts would now be a no-brainer abort. Flight control failures are among the most challenging- the Delta L-1011 out of LAX that managed to land safely, the JAL 747 crash and the United Sioux City crash which was a tragic miracle.
Engineer 44 years. I have seen every combination of messed up machinery, from human error to weather conditions...even a small bird landing on the machine and stopping it. But, this stone was NOT the first to be scattered along the tail gear, there would have been plenty of warnings of problems like that, and, all it would have taken, was a sharp eyed person to highlight the issue. I would like to bet that runway sweeping REALLY came into effect after this. Also, little credit is given to the fine fellow that stops the "Titanic" from hitting the ice berg.
I must admit that of all of the terroristic, human errors, and mechanical things you have touched on... This is by far the scariest one for me. To know that essentially a pebble took this giant bird down 😲😮😯😳
Your analysis is quitte sharp, including all the CRM concepts that were in force back in those days (actually CRM training came even later). Today we have take off briefings that allow any us to react to out of the blue stuff by sentences such as " if anything makes us believe the aircraft will not safely fly, we will reject the take off " and I am certain any crew would reject the take in such an obvious flight control issue. You approach in not blaming the crew is right as the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
I’ve been a passenger in a rejected takeoff and it was an interesting experience with debris flying horizontally down the aisle, the but I don’t understand how a rejected takeoff would be inherently dangerous - provided it’s before V1
Allec, not weird at all. I've seen this happen on a 747 during rotation. The thrust from the engines threw up loose asphalt from the runway and wound up causing a 3 foot gash in the left elevator. The aircraft returned safely. The airport was extending the runway and used asphalt instead of concrete.
I wonder if this would have manifested itself had the flight controls been exercised? I don't think I've ever initiated a takeoff without moving each control to its stops. it's easy to do and takes very little time. further, when the nose rose too far, something is seriously wrong. At that point, the plane becomes an emergency and no one else matters. So what if another plane has to go around, it's far better than risking crashing your own plane. The mentality of 'we must complete this takeoff' can be enormous and cloud judgement.
probably they did the check while still standing. problem was, if i got it correctly, that the pebble got wedged between the stabilizer and the elevator when the elevators were moved.
Grest video. I really enjoyed it. No, I didn't know it was possible for this to happen. I thought the vertical stabilizer was all one piece. Thank you for explaining what happened so well even I could understand it. Awesome! 👏👍❤
Seems they really should have aborted that takeoff. I suppose if the airplane was on fire, as long as the engines are working fine they would've kept going
@@beer1for2break3fast4 thanks for the platitude. When you cannot keep your tail off the runway, something is very wrong. They had plenty of room to stop.
This brought to mind what not checking the gust locks can do to a plane on takeoff - Air Indiana Flight 216 on 13 December 1977 comes to mind, and would be a good story for you to cover.
The control issues did not start off at the ground while still, the stone was not PRESENT until the plane was rolling, did not jam the controls until it was accelerating and the controls were in use.
Its amazing how even such small things can cause huge problems. Its also amazing that such problems virtually never happen. The exact same thing makes it perfectly reasonable to be afraid of flying, and is the reason you should not be afraid of flying.
Would you consider a video sometime about the loss of DC-8 N4909C (Capitol International) at Anchorage in 1969 ? Large loss of life and a question about the actual cause. Keep up the good work.
If exterior cameras were installed - the Flight Engineer would have noticed anomalies in the rear controls, once he panned the rear of the craft views. However, this is a big, “what if” hypothesis. Camera equipment would have been extremely bulky, in that era of flight. I still believe if multi-view minicams were available - both this doomed flight and JAL 123 may have had better outcomes. In 1976, we flew Trans International Airlines, to Hong Kong on a DC-10-30CF. We were stuck in Anchorage, as we awaited an engine part to be delivered and installed. TIA was a TransAmerica company then.
When they were at 80 kts, the plane started to pitch up. This was very unusual. By the time they hit 91 kts, the taile was dragging along the runway. Me, untrained, unqualified, should I find myself in such a nightmare: HIT THE BRAKES Imma outta here
Me, trained and married to a commercial pilot for 18 years. You are not wrong. Too much up-ness and tail draggy things are an omen of badness. Stopping should be the plan. Let the plane on approach go around. :)
I'm a certified technician. They didn't catch this at all during pre flight check? As part of your preflight check. You are so pose to check all your flight controls range of motion. Also make sure they are not loose or binding at all.
This type has aerodynamic servo control for the elevator (diagram at 3:18 ). Checking while standing still only verifies the control tab moves - without sufficient airspeed the elevator itself does not move so a jam is undetectable. My understanding is that after this incident, an elevator check was added during the takeoff roll at 80 kts. This speed is high enough to verify elevator response, but low enough to easily stop safely if the check fails.
Once the aircraft was airborne, once it was approaching a stall, I understand the textbook response is to roll the airplane off its lift-vector, causing the nose to drop, preventing the impending stall. According to the Advance Aircraft Maneuvering Program (AAMP) conducted by Captain Warren VanderBurgh. In a video, “Control Malfunctions & Flight Instrument Anomalies - Part Two, by Capt. VanderBurgh (restored),” on the flightcrewguide channel, the seminar provides to cases: Delta flight 1080 and China Airlines flight 140, one that was recovered and one that was not.
I flew Business Jets and my first Captain was a high time former 747 Pilot. He taught me that when I was flying from the right seat he expected me to make operational decisions, if he disagreed he would call for the controls. When the nose started up and pushing nose down did not work the power levers should have been closed and take off aborted by the person making the take off. The reroute of local traffic is the tower’s problem. Trust me no one from the FAA would have disagreed with the Copilots actions.
I was on duty at TIA that day, I worked in flight ops as a crew scheduler......I will never forget that day and the crew's names, as I had to repeat them so many times to all the other. crew members calling in to find out who was on board! There was construction going on at JFK (as always), it appears jet blast while taxiing caused that little piece of asphalt to get blown up over the horizontal stabilizer and get lodged in the elevator gap. Sad that Capt May did not reject the take off!
I started with a big airline in 1978. As a cruise relief pilot on the DC10. When the checklist item flight controls was reached the older pilots at that time checked the elevator, by PUSHING it first, then pulling it. Grinning, and saying, to have the stones roll of the elevators..
Many pilots, including myself, owe their safe career from lessons like these. This is an unfortunate reality.
However, not knowing aviation accidents history can be the difference between life and death in a decision making process.
Flying is 90% decision making and 10% of handling. Old Captains know this…and that is why they are old.
This channel is a must see ! Thank you !
After studying all these videos, and perhaps knowing more about the mechanical nature of the moving parts, and all the hydrolics, and worse, how computer glitches can affect the plane, I feel like with a little training I could fly one of these things. But perhaps I'm too old and flying's heyday has long past. It seems like they're trying to extinguish travel along with many people. But if these pilots keep dying, who knows, one day I may get to land one of these things. Any tips?
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 Yep, "How-to-Fly-an-Aircraft 101": Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If something is wrong before completion of "Aviate", reject take-off. Been there, done that. Still alive.
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 learn to master a cessna 172 first if you haven’t, it’s such an amazing experience to fly even in a basic 172
They are old because flying is still very very safe. There´s also no difference between highly experienced and "novice" pilots when it comes to crashes, pilot error or saving a plane. Stress situations cannot be trained and a 35 yo FO might be as cool as a 55yo captain.
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 - They're trying to extinguish travel? Who is? Sounds like some weird conspiracy theory.
I often have stones jammed into my lift equipment, but these machines are thick steel and will either crush the stones or simply skid them out of the way. Now when you have soft aluminum skins and fragile dense aluminum spars, that is a much more dangerous situation. Well explained. Thanks for another great episode Mini.
similarly, a hip hop can.
@@analogdistortion i believe he is merely reaffirming the relative fragility of aluminum as well as loosely implying that many types of debris are hazardous to aircraft fuselages.
may i axk if perchance if you are a hip hop can?
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568 no, I think cast iron would be ideal as it is very strong
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568 hip hop?
@@analogdistortion hip hop can, yes.
I'm a Navy veteran. Jet engine mechanic on the F-14 Tomcat 78-82. We called it FOD (Foreign Object Damage). We would have fod walkdowns picking up anything that could cause damage especially to the engines. Doing it on the carrier wasn't bad because it's only a quarter mile long but on the land base we had 11,oo
My brother worked at Northrop Grumman in St. Augustine, FL. They tore down wings & rebuilt them. While he worked in the offices, his job was to inspect the wings at different points of the repair. He even did FOD searches on our driveway! I do them around our boarding stable cause a horse will step on or taste anything.
Most of the workers were Ret Navy, my brother, Tom, was proud to work on Tomcats!
Yes - this is plausible and pilots should abort the take off if possible if ANYTHING odd happens during the roll. ANYTHING.
If that jams up a busy airport, too bad.
Yup, people will be alive to be disappointed and complain. Much better than the alternative.
@@goneracing1646 so one plane has to do a go-around/missed-approach, when lives are at stake, ya don't screw around. This incident also highlights the importance of CRM. All it would've taken is one member of the flight crew to say "something's wrong, let's abort and call the shop", and maybe they would've stopped and gotten off the runway alive and with a mostly intact plane.
Just remember though this was in the era where air travel was just beginning to be less than the cost of sea travel. A lot of the blood lessons we enjoy today ie CRM, routine missed approaches etc weren't really acceptable - only perfection.
Back then if the captain said go you went if you were a co-pilot. The co-pilot might not through fear even consider challenging the captain's authority. Not so today.
This horrible crash in 1972 may have been exacerbated by a pre flight argument.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548
@@ThePaulv12 Then Tenerif really drove it home
@@Tank50us I'm agreeing with you. Much better alive, inconvenienced and annoyed than the alternative.
A tail-strike seems like a clear reason to reject a takeoff, regardless of your training. That's potentially *worse* than losing an engine.
Losing an engine is far, far worse than a tail strike. In a similar DC-8, we hit tail on takeoff out of PAP-JFK. We completed the flight. It was checked in JFK and was able to continue its work. Tail strikes can range from a scratch to damage to the fuselage, but still not worse than loosing an engine especially on Take Off.
@@timbohp Sure, a little scrape wouldn't be concerning, but in this case it was a *hard* strike.
Depends how long and when in the take-off. Sure turn back if you feel like it but it’s not as bad as it seems.
@@lucaschneider1613 What a pity these pilots didn't "feel like it". They dragged this plane into the air after *literally* dragging its ass down the runway for 1200 feet.
No, they had no way of knowing they had a rock stuck in their ass crack - but they had every reason to know they couldn't get that plane off the ground and there had to be some damn good reason for that.
If they'd aborted that takeoff, the rock might have fallen out, leaving them none the wiser - until some slightly-less-idiotic engineer thought, hey, what would make this plane pitch up *all the way down the runway*.
It wasn't like today, when the pilots set out to fly and every damn thing they do gets run through some subcontractor's software FM box, to emerge on the other end in God only knows what configuration, and we finally bother to figure out what after we've sacrificed two plane loads of people.
But hey, those pilots were furriners and they just couldn't fly our fancy baby, amiright?
@@pseudotasuki - If you're at V1 speed.....you're not supposed to reject a take off as you won't have enough runway to stop after rejecting. Yes, they should've rejected ASAP, but they didn't. Once they got to V1 it was too late.
One of the few channels where i like each video and watch later.. Great stuff.
I mean, why would somebody dislike his videos? They’re quality content!
@@HeidenLam What i mean is, i know they would be great even before watching them..
@@fals2000 Good point
Same here
The 3 dislikes are from the stones that couldn’t crash an airplane
Another item for the list of terrifyingly insignificant things that can bring down a plane. A few pebbles, an insect, a piece of tape, a wrong sized screw...
A small burned-out light bulb (Eastern Air Lines 401).
The problem has mostly to do with the place where this insignificant item is attached.
A misplaced washer (China 120).
That’s why F.O.D or foreign object debris is a hugh Hugh concern for aircraft and here is a perfect example of what fod can do to an aircraft
Well, a plane or any other complex machine has some areas that are simply not meant to be interfered with by random stuff.
The thing that sets this channel apart from other air disaster channels is the intrigue titles, yet they aren’t clickbait instead one is greater with an interesting incident that is somewhat obscure, I can’t wait to see you reach 100k and get verified!
Deadly mistaken judgment: so sad it was induced, practically commanded, by company policies that there shall be no RTO unless an engine has completely failed.
As soon as the plane does something dangerous all by itself and you're still on the runway it's a rejected takeoff.
Unless you’re past v1 that is
@@Wehra96 yea but surely even past V1 slamming the air brakes,, throwing the engine in reverse and hoping for the best is still better and gives you a much higher chance of surviving AND more importantly your passengers (or some of them) being on the ground even if you collide with something than getting into the air and falling from a few thousand feet.
I was under the impression that, to this day it is still considered safer to complete a take off and then trouble shoot once airborne rather than reject a take off.
V1 is literally the maximum speed at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated in the event of an emergency. You don't know during takeoff how bad a problem is going to be until youre airborne. You do know as a fact that a rejected takeoff is likely going to result in a hull loss, injury and possible loss of human lifes.
@@andyrob3259 If they rejected an place before lift off or even a few feet after they turned off with 8-9000 feet of runway remaining. Also pulling the throttles to idle would have eliminated the tremendous pitch up force caused by the engines running at T/O power. There was no use of Flex/Standard/Reduced power in those days.
I actually remember reading an interview with an airline engineer who was just leaving JFK after his work shift when he heard right above him the scream of stalling engines, and looked up to see the big DC-8 fall out of the sky. He even tended to the crash site along with fire services and rescuers. He said he was haunted by the experience and the images for years afterwards.
Once (2006) I saw a stone removing dude in action on an apron. Between the parked airplanes he was just blowing the small stones away with a high pressure hose. The stones were flying all over the place denting the surfaces of the planes as well. Incredible negligence. But this is the way it happens... in Florida.
Thank God they were in New York because they do such a better job.. oh wait....
Aircraft owners have plenty to worry about, but this? Good grief!
The airplanes were just a stone's throw from disaster.
Now I wonder what would happen if a stone made its way into an engine... After all, at major airports, there are multiple aircraft with engines running. If the stones made their way into the engine and destroyed one of the fan blades, you could risk an uncontained engine failure. If the stones somehow made their way through the bypass of the turbofan without knocking out the blades, you'd get stones flying out from the back of the engine at whatever speed the air was coming out of the engine.
@@williamhuang8309 Pray pilots for want of stones.
I worked for United in 1970 on DC8s at our overhaul facility in SFO. I remember seeing stones in the flapwells of the wings and thinking “ how did they get there”. Also the DC 8 has manual elevators. no hydraulics not a well known fact
Huh that must mean this problem was pretty widespread
Wouldn't surprise me, you have any idea how hard it is to create an obstacle free space?
That's why I strongly prefer planes that are built to withstand the unexpected. For example, a small gasket blocking the opening would prevent anything like this from happening, but nope not there.
It's like hurricanes, we know the most common damage is to windows, but we know that a small barrier a distance away from the structure can weaken the forces enough that it can't damage the structure.
Yet, they pretty much never utilize these basic concepts to build hardened structures that don't kill their occupants whenever there is bad weather.
The solutions are usually plain as day, the issues usually because somebody refuses to do what they know they should do.
Just like with this pandemic... We knew what to do, we've done it successfully every other time... Yet bizarrely, they didn't do what they knew they should & now we are in an out of control pandemic.
You can't necessarily predict the unpredictable but come on, any engineer worth their salt, knows that small spaces between moving parts can become a trap for any random thing that gets in there.
It's not just a rock, if there's any sort of impact, explosion, part failure, etc; debris can be generated that can get stuck in there. Even my crappy washer & dryer has gaskets to prevent random crap from getting into the wrong places! It's not that novel an idea.
@@adambartlett114 Any links to exactly how to build hardened structures?
@@653j521 😂
I guess this case strengthened the argument for keeping the runways clean. The Concorde also died from FOD.
You do a tremendous job with these videos, love the no nonsense narration and info provided for those of us not in aviation!
I was on the DC-8 for a few years. I rember that our DC-8 -63's had a small gauge installed on the panel that showed elevator position. We would do an 80 knot elevator check and verified the movement with the gauge. I'm not positive but I think that gauge became a requirement after this accident.
Maybe I've been watching too many of these, but...
Halfway down the runway, the nose won't stay down, the plane won't take off...
ABORT ABORT ABORT !!!
I was actually expecting them to abort and run off the end of the runway. Nah! Let's just take off and figure it out in the air.
(edit) Having watched to the end now, great explanation. It's very interesting to see how procedures are improved as things are learned.
''Halfway down the runway, the nose won't stay down, the plane won't take off...'' .. maybe they werent sure about cargo comp. weight divisions , in the back of their heads they must said ''ohh another load masters shitery''..when they wasnot sure at one thing , they relied on another..
Generally, at most major airports, there is a clear zone at the ends of the runways. At JFK Airport, there are clear areas on the ends of the runways, so worst-case scenario, if they overrun the runway, they'd probably just destroy some lights.
@@ersendal2466 It was just a repositioning flight though. No passengers or cargo. I think it was just that the training for rejecting a takeoff only covered loss of power or a catastrophic failure. They had an unknown situation and only seconds to make the decision.
@@briant7265 yep you might be right. it should not be any cargo or it might be uneffective amount against trims
If you're already on the grouind, you should stay on the ground...
Very informative and well explained with accurate graphics...well done!👍
A serious tail strike has the potential to cause pressurization issues, right? One would think that would have been enough to reject the takeoff. Had no idea that the manuals and training focused on engines as the only real reason to reject as recently as the late 1960s. Mind blowing. Great job on this one.
Maybe in extreme cases but for the most part damage caused by tailstrike would fall in unpressurized areas
@@TLSFC5050 thank you for the insight. Am aware that the manufacturers add reinforcement in the area, but didn't know how effective it is in protecting the airframe from depressurization.
Depressurization - assuming the damage is severe enough - would only become a problem as soon as the plane reaches a certain altitude. The more immediate problem would be the rejected takeoff itself. Even if there is enough runway left the pilots still may come to the conclusion that it is less dangerous to proceed with the takeoff but return to the airport afterwards.
Usually tail strikes happen after the aft pressure bulkhead. So it would not cause any pressurisation issues.
@@Gruftkriecher But an uncommanded pitch-up prior to V1 let alone Vr strikes me as reason to abort.
Well, I (a retired ATP) would have firstly suspected a mis-set pitch trim..... even with a lightly loaded DC-8, an uncommanded rotation as low as at 80 kts. is highly unusual if not impossible. After verifying on the pitch trim gauge that the setting is within limits and asking the PF if he/she had inadvertently pulled on the yoke, I would have aborted. But that's while sitting in a comfortable chair... I do not mean in any way to criticize the poor crew. But there for the grace of god go I...
Would you not have recognsed that the control column had moved back OK, but then wouldn't go nose-down, suggesting a control failure - and have to either reject take-off, or rapidly make a lot of nose-down trim?
You're right. It's always easy to say "I would just" when you're in a comfy chair with no real pressure and several minutes to think about it, having been presented with all the facts.
Rather harder when a problem with a habituated movement unexpectedly throws you out of virtuoso mode and into learning mode at a time when you're already busy and stressed. The sudden jump of fear and confusion and the knowledge that this might be the end.
This always slightly annoys me when people calmy spend minutes, hours or weeks analyzing a crew's few seconds of confusion and fear and reach the conclusion they would have done it better.
That's what I thought...rotation at that speed is cause for pause!! You can ALWAYS fix things on the ground, not in the air. ALWAYS ERROR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION...that is what saves lives.
@@strangelove9608 Planes are SLIGHTLY more complicated...what an understatement.
Im addicted to your videos
Me2
Your have thought that, with flight control problems beginning at 80kts, the pilots would have aborted the take off. Unfortunately the concept of RTO’s and the horror of believing they would block a runway seemed to far outweigh the desire to stay alive.
I suspect that pilot discretion was less of a thing in 1970 also. Another video (74 Gear) mentioned that many airlines have instituted "no fault" go-arounds. The idea being that having to explain (to the boss) why you chose to go around made pilots hesitant, which resulted in incidents.
@@briant7265 my first airline made the captain come in and explain every go around. They also basically made it known you were finished if you did the emergency gear extension qrh procedure... It blew explosive bolts that cost 40k EACH.
That airline subsequently crashed a perfectly good q400 into a house...
@@BobbyGeneric145 Exactly! I mean, of you blew one of those bolts every week for 50 years it would add up to an entire $100 million airplane. (Illustrative calculation with ironic tone.)
Hindsight.. absolutely should have been a rejected take off. Pitch-up on takeoff before V1-Vr is usually a trim out of T-Off range issue (pilot error) or runaway trim (depending upon system type). In the simulators, we would train for hours just on rejected takeoffs, however, I support the notion that most flight training RE rejected takeoffs is definitely focused on engine data rather than flight control anomalies. A psychologist might say "out of sight - out of mind" to explain the rationale for continuing the flight. A known tail strike prior to V1 definitely should have been a rejected take off decision. I wonder what the transcript said from the CVR?
At those speeds, you have seconds to react before a problem gets out of control and cannot be resurrected. Surprised here that self-preservation did not kick in a little sharper while still in ground-effect. After V1, most training (through to the end of my career in 2000) was directed toward continuing the flight rather than running off the end of a runway into terrain, buildings or water.
@@richardmorgan3974 Not hindsight. I was not familiar with this incident and as he was describing it I honestly expected them to reject and run off the end of the runway.
Of course it is plausible. However, I don’t think anyone would ever think about in 1 million years. I agree with everyone else, I love your videos. My favorite videos are the ones where they don’t crash-but both are great
They should now. Especially EVERY airport resurfacing. They need to be more vigilant about debris, warning pilots to REJECT takeoffs if they have trouble with controls while debris is present during resurfacing is proceeding at that airport.
The old videos aren’t that promising. Just like this takeoff.
So sad MSFS has no crash dynamics
It serves no purpose in its function as a purpose-built flight simulator. That'd be a function for video games and the like, since nothing they would try to create would follow any semblance of realism, and therefore wouldn't fit in with what the simulator is meant to do.
@Leokimvideo Its not a crash simulation ... what would be a totally waste of resources to program in crash dynamics. The goal of the flight sim is to not crash.
So Sad. Again, Excellent production of all known facts. Thank you!
1200' tail strike? REJECT takeoff and have plane checked on exterior with magnifying glass.
Agreed. Taking off after a tail strike/ draaaaaaaaag seems not sensible. Wow!
Yes. Known such things to happen. Aeroperu's state of the art plane brought down by a few inches of tape in 1996, the Concord by a strip of twisted metal on the runway... It's heart wrenching.
Thanks for this informative video.
Maybe the emphasis in training and the urge to fly out of the way played a part.
Otherwise, if it ain’t working, a rejected take off should be instinct.
Of course possible, apropos the Concorde crash. From an armchair pilot perspective, it is "too easy" to say "no control, STOP while we can", but the real world is less straightforward.
Very true. But there's supposed to be three well trained brains on that flight deck. You'd think someone would have, and should spoken up. But, that's why we have CRM training.
Everytime I watch a video about a plane crash on here. I learn something new. Keep it up. I'm learning new things.
The legendary "stone stuck in elevator checklist"... Where are you?
It is standard to check full and free movement of control surfaces. But that is no good in the freakish case it gets jammed in later on during taxi or take off roll.
This accident perfectly illustrates the fact that aircraft certification is based on safety requirements involving mainly the aircraft’s internal reliability, that is the robustness to internal failures. Unfortunately, commercial aircraft evolve in a physical environment that includes many possible hazards and external factors of possible damage. The Concorde crash is a similar case, where a tiny metal strip fallen from a previous plane and lying on the runway was enough to cause a tire explosion with catastrophic consequences. No design can be perfectly robust to endless hazards and contingencies, however we should learn from the past that some of those should be accounted for, at least in future aircraft designs. Stones from runway/taxiway works are (or should be) one of them, just like bird strikes.
I may not be an aeronautical engineer, but I'm not sure it is even possible to make a FOD-proof airplane.
I've watched many of your videos. You do a great job. Keep it up.
This was a real posibility on the DC8. First, the elevators were not hydraulicly boosted, but manually controlled by cables from the control yoke. Second, with no airflow over the horizontal stab, the elevators would be full airplane nose up, so the gap between the elevators leading edge and the horizontal stab was several inches, big enough for anything to get in and jam something. A flight control check during taxi, was not sufficient as there was not enough speed to overcome the position of the elevators. Only during the initial takeoff roll, the elevators could be moved freely. Too bad, they did not abort the takeoff when the tail strike occurred. Sometimes relying on procedures, overrides common sense. Great video.
Mike Petey emphasizes that this is how he crashed Draco. He didn't like the look of the take off but continued out of consideration for ATC and other waiting aircraft. That consideration for others nearly killed him.
It's obvious that you enjoy making these videos, and they are really very well done. Thank you.
This accident resulted in a couple of changes for DC-8 flight crews. One was a call out of 80 knots by the non flying pilot which would be an indication that sufficient airflow over the elevators existed to perform an elevator check, moving the control column forward to accomplish a nose strut compression will indicate free elevator operation. After the nose bob the flying pilot will state Elevator Checked. If the elevator does not check satisfactory the rejected takeoff procedure is considered. This check is also a good indicator that the center of gravity and takeoff stabolizer setting was within limits.
Exactly, Ray.
Out standing!. You have a super program. Now, if only you could figure out why I lost both engines on a night cargo flight and crashed. (Piper Navajo).1999.
This led to the DC-8 takeoff procedure--at 80 knots, right seater momentarily pushes forward on the yoke to be sure the elevators react (nose down). Did it many times.
That procedure started after the TIA accident, and prior to the installation of the elevator position indicator.
Wow, I didn’t know about this crash, but it’s scary how something so insignificant can crash a plane, great video!
I don’t even remember this accident. Thank you for covering this unfortunate disaster. Have you ever considered covering the TWA accident that crashed on Weather Mountain in Virginia on final to Dulles? It was diverted to Dulles but was supposed to land at National Airport.
Great idea. I love your cat.
I worked that flight as a Controller
Unbelievably bad luck.
Great content as usual 👍
THIS is the comment of the youtube channel Mini Air Crash Investigation. On the 11th of September 2021 I wrote, that this is one of the best channels on youtube, cause everything went according to pleasure and entertainment until 9:52 when the video was over.
Wtf?
are you high dude
Suggestion : You should talk about the recommendations made by the investigation board and the changes made in other flying aircraft as a consequence of this.
For an example of a channel that does this very well (and which covers disasters very professionally and respectfully, Fascinating Horrors is worth watching)
One of my brothers works in Rescue at the airport here - he's always emphasised how they've been trained to recognise just how important proper - PROPER - FOD inspections are - they're taken VERY seriously. Lessons learnt, methinks.
I do like and did subscribe. Your videos are on point, no fillers, and well done. Glad I found this channel.
Takeoffs are optional; landings aren't.
I want to comment on an interesting phenomenon i have noticed. Mayday documentaries are being made available for public viewing on RUclips. I think this is because the people with the rights to them have discovered that your channel and others are basically producing content that is higher quality than theirs. Where you and the other RUclips air accident and incident documenters provide real analyses backed up with evidence and sensible arguments in a concise format, the Mayday productions concentrate too heavily on sensationalizing and attention grabbing. Frankly, Mayday and other documentaries of old embarrass me when compared to the quality of the documentaries that you and other RUclips content creators produce. Thank you very much for your work.
I have blocked the Mayday channel from being recommended to me in the future.
As far as im aware blocking them only prevents them from commenting, it probably wont help in this case, when i blocked someone their videos were still be recommended becasue i was watching similar videos by other creators. Not to say these are similar but to the algorithm it might be
I don't think the rights of the show has anything to do with RUclips content. Everyone is free to upload here. I love Mayday TV series ( or Air Crash Investigation). And I watch yt channels like this too.
@@maggie3060 There is an option "don't recommend me videos from this channel" when the video is on the front page
@@elkapitan75 Actually, show rights and copyright do have things to do with RUclips content. Everyone is free to upload here, but if it's a show with a paid license then those that own them have the rights to take your videos down or direct revenue from your video to them.
@@DrSabot-A but he's not talking about rights...
The graphics are great and the explanation of this unusual crash is perfect. Thanks for a great video.
After watching several of your mini aircraft crash videos I have come to the conclusion that I like them much better than the MAYDAY investigations that are dramatized on television.
One great aspect of your format is a teachable moment comes quickly and very clearly explained. This episode makes me want to more carefully examine and articulate the movable surfaces in the preflight walkaround check. Also, being mindful to understand what ever anomaly is found, scratches, gouges and dents can kill, if not understood prior to takeoff.
As a teenage driver, with little experience, I put books on the floor thinking my legs would keep them in place. When I clutched and braked to pick up some buddies, the slick textbooks fell foward under the pedals. And a 1961 544 Volvo (w/seatbelts) got its right front axle moved straight back 1 inch by a high stone curb. No one was hurt, but driving to school it was obvious my wallet was going to get very skinny and my back was going to buy $700 (1967$$) parts and labor.
I never did THAT again ! !
The legacy of your videos will hopefully be helping someone who is flying, from making an error with their textbooks on the deck. So to speak.
It would seem to me that the most likely reason a stone was stuck in the elevator, and more up in the tail section, is from dragging the goddamn tail 1200 ft down the runway. There was another primary cause for the nose to be prematurely lifting up. The plane's center of gravity could have been off due to how it was loaded. The pilot has to set the trim according to the load balance to take off properly. The stones in the tail were a direct effect of the tail dragging down the runway.
My friends: Flying is scary, what if there’s tubulence, an engine failure, or a mid air collision?
Things that actually bring down planes:
The scariest things are the ones nobody thinks of. This time it was a rock jammed in the elevator, next time it might be a raccoon in the landing gear or some other stupid thing.
@@josugambee3701 yeah lol
Just wow. Never considered it as a possible cause. Really expected something else. Another great video by you.
It just underlines how invaluable is the work that organisations like ours do all over the world. Even though many incidents that are investigated can show similarity of cause, it is well understood that there is always that one cause that is a first and you never know when that will happen. Excellent presentation, sir.
Very interesting video. Not one I have heard about. And that is why I love your channel. You have shown us incidents that are more unknown. Thank you!!
Great video! We've learned a lot since then. Light airplanes get into trouble trying to continue and heavies get into trouble trying to stop. However, an uncommanded pitch up at 80kts would now be a no-brainer abort. Flight control failures are among the most challenging- the Delta L-1011 out of LAX that managed to land safely, the JAL 747 crash and the United Sioux City crash which was a tragic miracle.
Engineer 44 years. I have seen every combination of messed up machinery, from human error to weather conditions...even a small bird landing on the machine and stopping it. But, this stone was NOT the first to be scattered along the tail gear, there would have been plenty of warnings of problems like that, and, all it would have taken, was a sharp eyed person to highlight the issue. I would like to bet that runway sweeping REALLY came into effect after this. Also, little credit is given to the fine fellow that stops the "Titanic" from hitting the ice berg.
When I was a kid I loved the Super DC-8s with their stretched fuselage. 😊
I must admit that of all of the terroristic, human errors, and mechanical things you have touched on... This is by far the scariest one for me. To know that essentially a pebble took this giant bird down 😲😮😯😳
FOD has always been a thing..
@@Sierrahtl what is understood need not be explained, however, this specific instance stands out "to me".
Me: “how a stoned passenger crashed a jet”
Sigh
MARILIZE LEGAJUANA
@@sheiladikshit5110 LEGAJUANA MARILIZE
@@re57k Three stupid replies from three morons who don't have the guts to use their real names. How much heavy jet flying do you have?
@@TheWidebody747 -3
How many people actually use their real names here?
Your analysis is quitte sharp, including all the CRM concepts that were in force back in those days (actually CRM training came even later).
Today we have take off briefings that allow any us to react to out of the blue stuff by sentences such as " if anything makes us believe the aircraft will not safely fly, we will reject the take off " and I am certain any crew would reject the take in such an obvious flight control issue. You approach in not blaming the crew is right as the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
It is so sad that the foreign objects hit a so crucial part of the plane, it reminds me about the last Concorde accident.
So nice to hear a commentary without that speed talking Dark skies.
...or having to read text about the story!
And they say that you can't get blood from a stone.
I thought was a turnip. "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip". Half dozen six, I guess, neither has the potential of producing blood, so ...
Nearly 100k subs!!!
Wasn't testing flaps and elevators, and such, while they taxied, common in those days? Did that get added to check lists because of this accident?
well maybe nothing seemed wrong until they got going
Agreed. If their yokes worked, they wouldn't detect the problem.
Excellent video again. 💛🙏🏼
I’ve been a passenger in a rejected takeoff and it was an interesting experience with debris flying horizontally down the aisle, the but I don’t understand how a rejected takeoff would be inherently dangerous - provided it’s before V1
GREAT SHOW
Allec, not weird at all. I've seen this happen on a 747 during rotation. The thrust from the engines threw up loose asphalt from the runway and wound up causing a 3 foot gash in the left elevator. The aircraft returned safely. The airport was extending the runway and used asphalt instead of concrete.
Thanks for the investigational information. Definitely useful for aircrew.
Lesson: if the plane pitches up by itself on the ground, it might pitch up by itself in the air. Abort and get it checked.
I wonder if this would have manifested itself had the flight controls been exercised?
I don't think I've ever initiated a takeoff without moving each control to its stops. it's easy to do and takes very little time.
further, when the nose rose too far, something is seriously wrong. At that point, the plane becomes an emergency and no one else matters. So what if another plane has to go around, it's far better than risking crashing your own plane.
The mentality of 'we must complete this takeoff' can be enormous and cloud judgement.
As a result of that accident, an elevator check was done at 80 knots during every take off.
probably they did the check while still standing. problem was, if i got it correctly, that the pebble got wedged between the stabilizer and the elevator when the elevators were moved.
Didn't know about this unfortunate accident. Thank you for your educative video. So sad about the training regarding rejected takeoffs.
I look forward to this channel more than any other.
I LOVE TO FIND A VIDEO I MISSED
Grest video. I really enjoyed it. No, I didn't know it was possible for this to happen. I thought the vertical stabilizer was all one piece. Thank you for explaining what happened so well even I could understand it. Awesome! 👏👍❤
Should have rejected takeoff when they realized something wrong. Unfortunate turn of events.
Seems they really should have aborted that takeoff. I suppose if the airplane was on fire, as long as the engines are working fine they would've kept going
Hind sight is always 20/20.
@@beer1for2break3fast4 thanks for the platitude. When you cannot keep your tail off the runway, something is very wrong. They had plenty of room to stop.
@@kevinbarry71 and hitting your tail could easily mean big trouble too...
This brought to mind what not checking the gust locks can do to a plane on takeoff - Air Indiana Flight 216 on 13 December 1977 comes to mind, and would be a good story for you to cover.
What were the recommendations following the investigation of thIs accident?
As always a succinct informative account ✅thx
Don’t pilots check for full range of movement on all flight control surfaces as part of their preflight checklist?
They are sopose too.
Part of preflight safety checklist.
@@Skimblshanks The DC-8 uses "servo tabs" for elevator control. Look it up.
The control issues did not start off at the ground while still, the stone was not PRESENT until the plane was rolling, did not jam the controls until it was accelerating and the controls were in use.
@@TheWidebody747 they were called "trim tabs" and used aerodynamic forces to control the larger elevator
I was with TIA at the time and worked part of this incident. You did a very accurate depiction of the event.
Hi gnrrguy. My dad was working for TIA at the time and he’s just told me all about the accident and subsequent changes to the rules.
Its amazing how even such small things can cause huge problems. Its also amazing that such problems virtually never happen. The exact same thing makes it perfectly reasonable to be afraid of flying, and is the reason you should not be afraid of flying.
This brings a whole new meaning to the term "getting stoned."
A meaning that is now completely opposite "getting high".
Would you consider a video sometime about the loss of DC-8 N4909C (Capitol International) at Anchorage in 1969 ? Large loss of life and a question about the actual cause. Keep up the good work.
This is a VERY good video! Well done.
If exterior cameras were installed - the Flight Engineer would have noticed anomalies in the rear controls, once he panned the rear of the craft views. However, this is a big, “what if” hypothesis. Camera equipment would have been extremely bulky, in that era of flight. I still believe if multi-view minicams were available - both this doomed flight and JAL 123 may have had better outcomes.
In 1976, we flew Trans International Airlines, to Hong Kong on a DC-10-30CF. We were stuck in Anchorage, as we awaited an engine part to be delivered and installed. TIA was a TransAmerica company then.
Great explanation. I love that HJG DC8 too
You do not mention the function of the moveable horiz. stabilizer. Could applying full forward trim have made up for the nose-up situation?
The atmosphere of completing the takeoff regardless (following traffic, pride, etc.) all contributed to the crash!
Freak situation. Great work by the investigators to find this out.
Came here as soon as the notification came
How did the stone get into and past the access panel? Was ot left open?
Hey great video - loving how your channel has got so much bigger my mini friend love Feefeecat
When they were at 80 kts, the plane started to pitch up. This was very unusual.
By the time they hit 91 kts, the taile was dragging along the runway.
Me, untrained, unqualified, should I find myself in such a nightmare: HIT THE BRAKES
Imma outta here
Me, trained and married to a commercial pilot for 18 years. You are not wrong. Too much up-ness and tail draggy things are an omen of badness. Stopping should be the plan. Let the plane on approach go around. :)
Dude, that was a hard landing! 😂
Cant wait to watch
I'm a certified technician. They didn't catch this at all during pre flight check? As part of your preflight check. You are so pose to check all your flight controls range of motion. Also make sure they are not loose or binding at all.
Yeah, but the stone probably lodged itself on the runway anyway, well after the preflight checks could catch it...
This type has aerodynamic servo control for the elevator (diagram at 3:18 ). Checking while standing still only verifies the control tab moves - without sufficient airspeed the elevator itself does not move so a jam is undetectable.
My understanding is that after this incident, an elevator check was added during the takeoff roll at 80 kts. This speed is high enough to verify elevator response, but low enough to easily stop safely if the check fails.
Once the aircraft was airborne, once it was approaching a stall, I understand the textbook response is to roll the airplane off its lift-vector, causing the nose to drop, preventing the impending stall. According to the Advance Aircraft Maneuvering Program (AAMP) conducted by Captain Warren VanderBurgh. In a video, “Control Malfunctions & Flight Instrument Anomalies - Part Two, by Capt. VanderBurgh (restored),” on the flightcrewguide channel, the seminar provides to cases: Delta flight 1080 and China Airlines flight 140, one that was recovered and one that was not.
I flew Business Jets and my first Captain was a high time former 747 Pilot. He taught me that when I was flying from the right seat he expected me to make operational decisions, if he disagreed he would call for the controls. When the nose started up and pushing nose down did not work the power levers should have been closed and take off aborted by the person making the take off. The reroute of local traffic is the tower’s problem. Trust me no one from the FAA would have disagreed with the Copilots actions.
I was on duty at TIA that day, I worked in flight ops as a crew scheduler......I will never forget that day and the crew's names, as I had to repeat them so many times to all the other. crew members calling in to find out who was on board! There was construction going on at JFK (as always), it appears jet blast while taxiing caused that little piece of asphalt to get blown up over the horizontal stabilizer and get lodged in the elevator gap. Sad that Capt May did not reject the take off!
I started with a big airline in 1978. As a cruise relief pilot on the DC10. When the checklist item flight controls was reached the older pilots at that time checked the elevator, by PUSHING it first, then pulling it. Grinning, and saying, to have the stones roll of the elevators..